Comment: Oh boy, more 9/11 misdirection by mrbengal...

(See in situ)


Oh boy, more 9/11 misdirection by mrbengal...

You show up in every 9/11 thread purposely trying to confuse people on the issue, and here you are yet again in a thread of your own. You already posted a link to National Security Alert, the video containing proof beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1) There was a large plane on the scene.
2) This plane approached on a "north of Citgo" flight path which makes it impossible for it to have struck the five light poles or caused the directional damage to the building itself. The two are mutually exclusive.
3) The plane could not have and did not strike the building and was even seen flying away by numerous eyewitnesses including Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

You attempt to discredit this video by claiming that 100% of the evidence in it is "opinion", apparently referring to the detailed, on camera interviews with well-placed eyewitnesses. Dismissing these as mere "opinion" and not "real evidence" is absurd. Eyewitness accounts are used in court to put people behind bars every day. They are not infallible in and of themselves, but they are important pieces of evidence (not mere "opinion"), especially when they corroborate each other and are used in conjunction with other types of evidence. That is exactly what is done in that documentary to show that the Pentagon event was a false flag, and it certainly does constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As explained on the official website and in the video itself:

...it would be very difficult for any one of these witnesses to get the location of the plane in relation to the Navy Annex and/or gas station wrong given their vantage points, especially the witnesses who were actually on the station property, who were in the best location out of the entire witness pool to judge which side the plane flew on with accuracy. The notion that they are all simultaneously incorrect about this general detail in the same way is not even remotely conceivable. And again, some of them are on record just weeks after the event placing the plane in the same location.

And before you try to say that they all corroborate each other about the impact too:

...the north side approach and impact are mutually exclusive claims. All of them being independently mistaken about the north side approach given their various excellent vantage points would require simultaneous matching hallucinations. All of them being deceived about the plane hitting the building would require deliberate deception [on the part of the same perpetrators who deliberately deceived people around the world into thinking that the towers weren't being blown up before their very eyes]

Furthermore, your claim that the witnesses all "SAW THE PLANE hit the Pentagon" is yet another misleading statement by you. From the same link:

...while they each had an excellent view of the plane as it passed by them at treetop level,many of the witnesses in question did not have a clear view of the impact point, or in some cases any view of the Pentagon at all, and/or they admit to running, flinching, or ducking for cover. This is explained and documented very clearly in National Security Alert.

For example:

"No one was really trying to look see if it actually was gonna hit the building or not hit the building. So everyone was running in the opposite direction for their lives"
- Darius Prather, ANC maintence worker

We sent our DVD The PentaCon to Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks, and they stuck by the north side flight path, even AFTER being made aware of the implications. Sgt. Brooks called our video an "eye-opener", and admitted that "anything is possible" in terms of him being fooled about the impact. (This too is explained in National Security Alert). We also sent Arlington National Cemetary worker and eyewitness Darrell Stafford copies of The North Side Flyover and National Security Alert, and we know from a recent CNN piece that Mr. Stafford is sticking to the north side approach as well, which is not surprising because he is on record saying the same thing since 2001 and is corroborated by the witnesses in the absolute best locations to confirm or refute this detail out of the entire witness pool, proving that 9/11 was an inside job.

I guess you just "missed" all that.

You then demand "real" evidence such as "eyewitness accounts of something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon", photos of a "piece or part of a missile or anything else", and video of "something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon." First of all, I thought eyewitnesses could only provide "opinion"? More importantly, you are setting up a FALSE DILEMMA -- either AA77 impacted or "something else" impacted -- which assumes that SOMETHING impacted, when in reality as you well know there is only evidence for ONE flying object on the scene, a large plane, which did NOT hit. NOTHING "hit". So you misrepresent and handwave the overwhelming evidence for what really happened (flyover timed with internal explosion) and demand evidence for what didn't happen (missile impact). Nice try.